|
Unlike in 2007, the two big players, the BSP and SP, go into battle with their roles reversed. Then, the BSP benefited from the SP’s shrinking aura. The anti-incumbency feeling against Mulayam Singh Yadav was stoked by his inability to counter general charges like the collapse of law and order. (His playing footsie with ex-BJP chief minister Kalyan Singh before the 2009 Lok Sabha polls, for anticipated benefits from his Lodh votebase, corroded his image further in the interim.) This time, however, it’s the BSP that has to struggle to retain its turf. Many in Mayawati’s inner coterie privately admit that notching up 150 seats in a house of 403 may not be easy.
Police arrest people who attended the Third Papuan Peoples' Congress event in Abepura, at the outskirts of Jayapura, on Oct. 19. (Reuters Photo) | How Bengal govt gains from hikes |
| SRIKUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY AND SAMBIT SAHA |
Calcutta, Nov. 4: Trinamul MPs want to pull out of the UPA government over the petrol price increase but their own party’s government has been reaping the benefits of successive hikes since May. After yesterday’s price increase, the Bengal government stands to collect in taxes Rs 15.13, including a Re 1 cess, from every litre of petrol sold in the state. (See chart in lead story) If only the taxes from refinery to the consumer are taken into account, Bengal’s share is actually higher than what the Centre earns from each litre of petrol. Such central taxes account for Rs 14.78 of the total retail price per litre. Since May 14, while the Centre has raised petrol prices four times, the Mamata Banerjee government has not given any indication that it would forgo a share of the sales tax to ease the burden on “the common man”. Mamata withdrew the surcharge on cooking gas, which apparently cost the government Rs 75 crore a year or Rs 6.25 crore a month. However, the sales tax collection from petrol outweighs what the state has given up. “In Bengal, there are 2,500 petrol pumps, each selling on an average 8,000 litres of the fuel a month,” said Surojit Kole, the general secretary of the West Bengal Petroleum Dealers’ Association. It means that on an average, 2 crore litres of petrol are sold every month in the state. At current prices, this adds up to Rs 146.30 crore, of which over Rs 30 crore will go to the state exchequer every month. Asked why the Bengal government was not reducing the sales tax on petrol — the Congress-led front in Kerala did so today — a senior minister said: “We are devoting the next seven days to making the Centre see reason and convincing it to roll back the price. We hope to succeed in this. If this does happen, it will happen only because of our leader Mamata Banerjee. We will consider the sales tax reduction after the final decision is taken on the hike and correspondingly our continuation in the UPA government.” The Centre has not indicated so far whether it will cut its share of the tax. One reason for the reluctance on the part of the Centre and the state could be that petrol is a milch cow that does not have too much of a cascading effect on the ground, unlike diesel and kerosene. Belying the intensity of the political storm around the hike, petrol accounts for only 1.09 per cent in the inflation index and it is used largely in private cars, two-wheelers and three-wheelers. “Those who use public transport and cannot afford the luxury of a car will not be hit. However, there is a section of the middle class and above who would be using petrol for bikes and cars. But they are far outnumbered by the grassroots people in cities and villages,” said economist Dipankar Dasgupta. Two-wheeler sales, used by all economic sections, have jumped in October despite hikes in petrol prices and interest rates. The latest hike will add Rs 60 to the monthly fuel bill if a bike uses 30 litres a month. Among car owners, many high-end buyers have been switching to diesel, which is sold on a subsidy. Many foreign carmakers have recently come up with diesel variants to tap the demand. Nigel E. Wark, executive director (marketing, sales and service) of Ford India, said 70 per cent of the national demand for the company’s car was for diesel vehicles. |
 |
| THE ADAGE ASSASSINS | ||
| Betrayed Youngsters who would’ve given eye teeth to play Jailed Trio of players who killed the saying ‘it’s not cricket’ | ||
| AMIT ROY | ||
London, Nov. 3: Mohammed Aamer is a very lucky young man – he will be released from a young offenders’ institution in three months because the judge felt he was a simple village youth who had been led astray by his captain. Trust, Mr Justice Cooke argued, was gone. “Now, whenever people look back on a surprising event in a game or a surprising result or whenever in the future there are surprising events or results, followers of the game who have paid good money to watch it live or to watch it on TV, in the shape of licence money or TV subscriptions, will be led to wonder whether there has been a fix and whether what they have been watching is a genuine contest between bat and ball. What ought to be honest sporting competition may not be such at all.” The offences were so serious “that only a sentence of imprisonment will suffice to mark the nature of the crimes and to deter any other cricketer, agent or anyone else who considers corrupt activity of this kind”. The speculation yesterday was that the Pakistani Test cricketers – captain Salman Butt, 27, and fast bowlers Mohammed Asif, 28,and Aamer, 19 – had conspired with their agent Mazhar Majeed, 36, to bowl three no balls to order last year, would be sent to prison for seven years. Instead, Mr Justice Cooke gave Aamer six months today and said he will be released on parole after three. Majeed received two years and eight months, the heaviest, but he, too, will serve half his sentence before he is released on licence. That means he has to be “on good behaviour” while he serves the rest of his sentence outside prison. The judge had harsh words for Butt because he was the skipper and had corrupted young Aamer and gave him 30 months. He will come out of prison after 15 months. Asif got a year – he will be out in six months. Majeed, Butt and Asif will be held at Wandsworth prison in South London where they may get picked on my on by other prisoners. Oscar Wilde, incidentally, moved to Wandsworth prison, having started serving his sentence in 1895 for preaching “the love that dare not speak its name” at Pentonville. No doubt, there will be disappointment that the judge was not tougher today but by sending three top cricketers to prison for corruption, the first time such action has been taken in the sport, he was making a point. Just before 10am, the door to court number 4 at Southwark Crown Court opened and there was an unseemly stampede by journalists waiting outside for an hour or more to find a seat inside. Some had laptops open ready to flash the verdicts to the cricketing world outside. The electronic clock showed the time – 10:14:46 – as Mr Justice Cooke started reading his verdict. The four guilty men sat next to each other in a large glass box but did not exchange even pleasantries with each other. Next to Aamer was a young Asian woman, his “interpreter”. The judge’s voice was so soft that he could scarcely be heard in the dock. The four men sat still, heads slightly bowed, as Mr Justice Cooke read his judgement. His main point was that cricket was a very special game which had been ruined by corruption. Outside court, as British, Indian and Pakistan journalists jostled to get in, an Englishman could be heard admonishing: “We queue in this country – it’s an old English custom.” This sense of cultural superiority could well be reinforced in some manner by the trial of four Pakistanis. As one Pakistani journalist left after the verdict, he called out to The Telegraph: “Today is a sad day for Pakistan.” There was a sense that this was not just a trial of three cricketers and their agent but a battle between English and Pakistani cultural values. The four had corrupted a pastime “the very name of which used to be associated with fair dealing on the sporting field”, the judge commented. “ ‘It’s not cricket’ was an adage. It is the insidious effect of your actions on professional cricket and the followers of it which make the offences so serious.” They had “procured the bowling of 3 no balls for money”. “The image and integrity of what was once a game, but is now a business is damaged in the eyes of all, including the many youngsters who regarded three of you as heroes and would have given their eye teeth to play at the levels and with the skill that you had,” he remarked. Mr Justice Cooke spoke of the damage to national pride. “In Pakistan, where cricket is the national sport, the ordinary follower of the national team feels betrayed by your activities, as do your fellow countrymen in this country. You Butt, Asif and Aamer have let down all your supporters and all followers of the game.” He turned to Majeed, Butt, Asif and Aamer, in turn. The first was Majeed who had accepted £150,000 from an undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood from the News of the World. Police had confiscated wads of cash when they entered the hotel rooms of the cricketers in summer last year. “The fact that of the £150,000 that you actually received, only £2,500 in marked notes was found in Butt’s possession and £1,500 in Aamer’s possession, together with the evidence of payment of £13,000 into Butt’s bank account and some £23,000 into your company’s accounts, suggests that you took the lion’s share of the cash paid by the journalist,” the judge said. Mr Justice Cooke hinted the problem could be much deeper within Pakistan cricket. “Whether or not what this court has had to consider is just the tip of an iceberg, is not for me to say and lies beyond the scope of the evidence I have heard, but, even allowing for your ‘sales talk’ to the journalist, I am sure that there was an element of truth in what you said about past fixing.” India was dragged in on a couple of occasions. Once, when the judge told Majeed: “It is clear from the telephone schedules that you were in touch with contacts in India and Dubai and were passing on information relating to the Oval and Lord’s Test matches in relation to gambling activity there. India was again mentioned when he said: “It is hard to assess the amounts of money of which persons might have been but were not defrauded in the gambling industry, by virtue of information given to the journalist and to say whether or not any money was made as a result of the information given to the Indian and Dubai contacts, of which there is no evidence. The extent of your gain remains unclear.” The four men looked impassive as the judged his verdicts. Perhaps they did not even understand the legal wording. To Butt, who pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy, the judge said: “It is clear to me that you were the orchestrator of this activity, as you had to be, as captain, in arranging for these bowlers to be bowling the overs which were identified in advance to Majeed and which he identified to the News of the World.” He contrasted Butt’s background with that of Aamer. “You were a natural captain, picked out as such from the age of 17 for national teams, and had the advantage of a good education. You were a man of status. As I have already said, you bear the major responsibility for the corrupt activities, along with Majeed.” He held the skipper responsible for leading his teenage bowler astray. “I consider that you were responsible for involving Aamer in the corruption – an 18 year old from a poverty stricken village background, very different to your own privileged one, who, whilst a very talented bowler, would be inclined to do what his senior players and particularly his captain told him, especially when told there was money in it for him and this was part of the common culture. For an impressionable youngster, not long in the team to stand out against the blandishments of his captain would have been hard.” The judge suggested there could be other guilty men who had not been brought to court. “It appears that the corruption may have been more widespread than the defendants here before me, and may have permeated the team in earlier days, though I have seen no direct evidence of that. If that is the case, you, as Captain, perpetuated such an atmosphere of corruption and would be responsible for it and for the desire to use Majeed and his contacts to make money for yourself and others in the team.” The judge condemned the captain: “In the words you used to the jury – what you did was a terrible thing – it is bad for the game of cricket, bad for the country and shows the character of the man involved. Not only were you involved but you involved others and abused your position as captain and leader in doing so, bringing to bear your considerable influence on Aamer at the very least.” In passing sentence, the judge took into account that all three cricketers were banned by the International Cricket Council from playing international cricket for, at least, five years. He told Butt: “You have been subjected to a ban on playing cricket for 10 years, of which 5 are suspended. You will be 31 or so, when the active part of that ban comes to an end and you will have lost some of the best years of a batsman’s life as well as the years of captaincy. Your playing career may well be at an end for all practical purposes.” As for Asif, who faced a seven year ICC ban, of which two were suspended, “its effect on your career as a fast bowler now aged 28, means that your cricketing career is effectively over”.
“This enables me to take a more lenient course, than I otherwise might,” Mr Justice Cooke explained. “That is the punishment imposed by the cricket authorities but these crimes of which you have been convicted require that a sentence be imposed which marks them for what they are and acts as a deterrent for any future cricketers who may be tempted.” He commended Aamer for pleading guilty which he acknowledged “took courage”. There was a sinister reference to the underworld in Pakistan. “You have referred, in material presented to the court, to threats to yourself and your family, saying that there are significant limits to what you can say in public. The reality of those threats and the strength of the underworld influences who control unlawful betting abroad is shown by the supporting evidence in the bundle of documents, including materials from the Anti Corruption and Security Unit of the ICC.” Aamer, who had pleaded guilty to two charges, was told: “If you had not pleaded guilty you would have received concurrent sentences of 9 months’ imprisonment on each offence.” All the four men learnt that they “will serve half the time imposed in custody and then you will be released on licence. If you breach your licence or commit any other offence, you may be brought back to serve the remainder of your sentence.” The News of the World’s cheeky demand for the return of £150,000 from Majeed was rejected – “the News of the World got what it bargained for when paying the £150,000 in question”. But the four will be required to contribute to prosecution costs – £56,554 for Majeed; £30,937 for Butt; £8,120 for Asif; and £9,389 for Aamer. Aamer’s barrister said the young bowler would appeal against his sentence. Butt’s solicitor also said the cricketer would lodge an appeal against his sentence within 24 hours. The trial took place in Britain because the offence took place on British soil. If the Pakistani cricketers had refused to agree to a trial in Britain, they could have faced unforeseen consequences in Pakistan. |
| |
INDIA: POSCO project is not more important than public opinion An Open Letter from the Asian Human Rights Commission to the Chief Minister of Orissa
Chief Minister
Mr. Naveen Patnaik
Through the office of the Principal Secretary
Home Department, Government of Orissa
Naveen Nivas, Aerodrome Road
Bhubaneswar 751001, Orissa
INDIA
Fax: +91 674 25351006
Email: homesec@ori.nic.in
Dear Sir,
INDIA: POSCO project is not more important than public opinion
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to express its concern to your government, regarding the Orissa State Government's decision to resume construction and land acquisition for the Pohang Steel Company (POSCO) project. We request you to review the decision for the reasons stated hereunder.
The AHRC is monitoring human rights violations, and the legal procedures adopted concerning the POSCO project. We are informed through respectable sources that at present, the villagers affected by the POSCO project are opposed to it, suggesting that the government and POSCO have failed to convince communities of the project's benefits.
Despite reports pointing to a series of human rights violations as well as adverse environmental impact by all government-sponsored committees that have studied the project, the Ministry of Environment and Forests cleared the project in January 2011, subject to 28 conditions. We are also aware of the state government's unwarranted and illegal use of brute force by the state police against those protesting against the implementation of the project, the latest of which that has been reported to us happened in June 2011. We are aware that on this occasion also the police attacked the villages while they were peacefully protesting against the project. We are aware that the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), made adverse observations about the manner in which the state police behaved to the villagers, including the occupying of schools, that prompted the Commission to direct your government the immediate withdrawal of police force from the schools.
The AHRC is aware that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the state government and POSCO expired in June 2011 and is yet to be renewed. While the MoU is being examined by the Law Department, your government has announced that it would hand over 2000 acres of cleared land to POSCO when the MoU is renewed. In this backdrop, we wish to recall your attention to the fact that the government going ahead with any project related land work without a renewed MoU would be legally untenable and thus challengeable in a court of law. Further, the people of the state, in particular those who are directly affected by the implementation of the project, and not just the state's bureaucrats, the state cabinet and the POSCO, has a right to know the terms of the MoU, should it be renewed.
The 2000 acres being handed over in the name of 'public interest' are claimed as government land, acquired by the Industrial Development Corporation of India (IDCO). To this end, 60,000 trees on this land have already been cut, and an estimated ten times more trees will be cut in total. Deforestation may only benefit the POSCO and indirectly the government from the revenue generated from the project. The environmental impact caused by the massive deforestation is no 'public interest', nor is it 'public responsibility' to bear the long-term consequences of deforestation. The bureaucratic notion and reasoning that there is public interest for the land to be cleared for the POSCO project has no factual basis. The decision is legally challengeable and would not even stand the basic test of reasonableness and proportionality in a court of law. The AHRC is certain that your government has sought and obtained appropriate legal advice on this matter.
The government has in fact been misusing the term 'public'. Forestland claimed as government land is actually public land, which forest dwellers, farmers and adivasis have been depending on for generations. Just like the air, sea, or river, those who depend on the forest for their survival, have so far shared it. They have their own rules for its use, protection and conservation, set over generations. The AHRC is certain that your government is aware of the reports made by the Committees who have studied the project. It is disheartening to learn that the government choose to ignore the claims under the Forest (Right) Act 2006 of the forest dwellers upon the land now proposed to be used for the project, on the guise that there were no such claims. This issue has not been properly reviewed so far. If the government insists that the project is for 'public interest', it should give priority to the real public - people living and depending upon the forest. In that case, the people can decide upon their ‘public interest’, and take responsibility for it.
The conversion of public land to government land, for private interest supported by the government, without considering the potential of the brunt it will definitely cause upon the livelihood of the people who depends on the land, and its impact upon the environment appears to be ignored by the government. For instance, the Casuarina tree, known as a cyclone protector in the area, is being cut down. Regardless of their opinions about the POSCO project, all the villagers are concerned about their protection from natural disasters in the future. This act alone depicts how contrasting is the alleged cause 'public interest' and the mode of implementation of the project.
The AHRC has reported the government's failure to protect villagers from criminals hired by construction company, who attacked the villagers while they were peacefully protesting in September 2011 against the road construction related to the project. To our information, your government has failed to investigate the matter or punish those responsible for committing crimes. Further, it is shocking to know that the company has already started taking law into their own hands, that too by employing criminals to silence opposition, which no government worthy of its constitutional mandate to the people should have allowed to happen. The fact that there has been no action against this by the government reiterates the villagers and general suspicion that the government favours POSCO as against the people. We are concerned that the recent decision to resume construction and forest clearance for the POSCO project will lead to further human rights violence against the villagers.
In light of the above, the AHRC requests your government:
1. The government should respect the right of all villagers affected by the POSCO project to participate in decision-making and obtain their informed consent before going ahead with the project, as well as respecting their right to land and food;
2. The government should respect public opinion concerning the POSCO project, particularly of those directly affected by the project;
3. The government should not allow any project related land work to be undertaken by POSCO or do similar work on behalf of POSCO before the MoU is renewed;
4. Finally, the government should stop the road construction, land acquisition and cutting of trees until informed consent from the people directly affected by such activities are obtained. Sincerely,
Wong Kai Shing
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Copies to:
Minister of Environment and Forests, INDIA
Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, INDIA
UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate food, SWITZERLAND
|
Protest rallies in Delhi and Mumbai marked the 27th anniversary of the state organized massacre of Sikhs in 1984.
